Table of Comments (2948)

by section

Comments on

Population Ecology and Life Expectancy

Noma on the whole section

It makes sense that the life expectancy of people in developing countries is on the increase due to more availability of medication to treat the symptoms of diseases like HIV or global aid helping to decrease hunger. Americans do not for the most part have the same health problems as people in developing countries because of better sanitation and awareness of diseases. Despite the awareness of things such as obesity, diabetes, smoking, and HIV we just choose not to listen. This is not to say that none of us don’t listen but there are still people who ignore the health risks of eating too much fast food and just consider that taking medication like Lipitor will solve their problems. Americans are too dependent on medications and because of that we do not consider other ways to solve health problems. The people in developing countries benefit from the increase of medications but their lifestyle is not sedentary. Like David mentioned, the size of foods in other countries is a lot smaller than in the United States. In other countries more people are willing to walk to places. So it’s great that we readily have access to medication that help with high blood pressure or high cholesterol but lifestyle changes should be made before hand so that we are able to live longer.

go to thread »
Posted November 24, 2007  10:06 am
Stephen Geest on paragraph 3

The leading killer of americans in 2002 is heart disease, followed by cancer, followed by unintensional injury. it is the smoking, Obesity, and America’s obssesion with a tan that causes early death. But I don’t know if it is America not caring about the portions they eat or what they eat that hurts them worse, but there is definately a coralation there. smoking is cancer’s best friend and the sun hangs out with them too. we need to not only change our eating habits but our prespective on tanning and smoking as well

go to thread »
Posted November 24, 2007  9:42 am
Aadil Sarfani on paragraph 3

I don’t think that anyone should determine population growth rate but natural processes. We don’t have a right to control how many people will be born. What if YOU had never been born because your parents decided they didn’t want a third child and contribute to growing population? By natural processes, I meant that when human population on earth gets too big, resources will be short and it will be harder to raise a child. People will naturally start to have less children and an equilibrium will be reached.

go to thread »
Posted November 23, 2007  6:11 pm
Aadil Sarfani on the whole section

Very interesting.
First of all, I think that the lower life span is due to the modern life style. Our body was not evolved for this kind of lifestyle. It can, most of the time, heal itself, but this cannot happen in this kind of lifestyle. If we lived in the wild and got plenty of exercise every day, we would not have obesity, also we would be more immune to diseases. The lack of vaccines and medication would decrease life expectancy, but also the lack of things that make us lazy would make us more healthy. I personally know a friend of my dad’s who believes that he should live just the way we used to live in nature. He does not take medication, or drink coke (or any artificially made food products), showers in water of outside temperature (even in December), uses natural substitutes for many things such as soap, etc.He is 60 but looks like he’s 40. He is healthier than most 30-40 year olds and more active than them. He never gets sick. He’s also a vegetarian. (He’s not a freak, he’s a very normal person). Perhaps, since we’ve modified our lifestyle so greatly that somewhere between all these artificial food products and tooth paste and inorganic foods, there is something, or a few multiple things which make our life span shorter. Also, some studies show that vegetarians tend to have about a 5 year longer life span.

go to thread »
Posted November 23, 2007  6:08 pm
DavidGolynskiy on the whole section

I agree with the comment above.
And I personally experienced the food aspect.
Since I am originally from Uzbekistan, I noticed the differnce about food in America. Everything is huge, more colorful, and is available in abundance during any season. For example, I have never seen an apple bigger than 2 of my fists put together….. until, I came to America. Most of the fruits/vegitables/flowers/meats that are in the grocery stores, are grown with chemicals. These chemicals help things grow faster and they are the things that often cause many health problems. This aspect is hidden from people because without these chemical America would not survive. The population is so big and demanding that natural production does not satisfy the counrty.

And there is not “competition” in America. All you have to do is just go to the store and buy some food. There is always money available through foodstamps/welfare/regular income. Yet, this is what makes America so great, it takes a major natural limiting factor out. So therefore, Ameica today is like a sucessful invasive species with no limits.

Anyway, these food factors really cannot be changed. It is like changing an elephant’s diet to an insect’s diet. Impossible. I think. But, even it is possible to do so. I don’t think it should be done. It would not make America unique.
The whole idea of “everything is big in America” and it is the “land of oppertunity” attracts people to it.

Over all, I think that food and amount of domestic resources should limit the population of U.S.

go to thread »
Posted September 22, 2007  1:45 pm
thesmartblonde223 on the whole section

My personal opinion of this is because other countries are more health conscious. Isn’t the United States the most overweight country in the world? I think that’s possibly a reason why the life expectancy is so low.

I believe that there are many factors that contribute to this shortage in life expectancy: food choices, lack of excersise, and pollution, among other things. I don’t think that food choices and lack of excersise can be eliminated. I know quite a few people who don’t care about their food choices. They are simply too lazy. Whether or not this reflects on the rest of the country is something that remains to be determined.

I don’t think these factors should be eliminated. Scientifically speaking, humans were never meant to be so widespread. Humans are soft and squishie, whereas a grizzly bear is all claws and teeth. Catch my drift? Humans were never meant to be a dominant species. However, humans have been defying death for centuries ever since we discovered new medicine and advanced technology.

I also believe that one day, this may be our downfall. Humans may have the technology and medicine, but there is one thing that we won’t be able to change: our genetic makeup. Eventually, everyone’s DNA will become almost the same, through centuries and centuries of inbreeding. A disease may kill everyone off, or perhaps a natural disaster, like an asteroid.

I don’t think that anyone will be able to determine the rate of population growth for a country’s people, because there will always be someone who refuses to see the need for regulating population, and that someone will blather on and on about rights. That in itself is another rant.

I think I’m finished here, otherwise I’ll be ranting for a lot longer.

go to thread »
Posted September 15, 2007  11:00 am